« Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 8 NFP) »

Monday, October 29, 2007

Ind. Decisions - COA issues ruling today in Smith and Wesson case

Oral arguments were heard by the COA earlier this month in the case of Smith and Wesson Corporation, et al v. Town of Gary, et al. Today the COA has issued its ruling, notable in part for the 3 pages of names lined up on the side of Smith & Wesson:

In Smith and Wesson Corporation, et al v. Town of Gary, et al, a 24-page opinion, Judge Sharpnack writes:

Smith & Wesson, et al. (“Manufacturers”), bring this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for judgment on the pleadings in the action brought by the City of Gary, Indiana (“City”). The Manufacturers raise two issues, which we restate as:
I. Whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903, bars the City’s nuisance claims; and

II. Whether the PLCAA violates the Due Process Clause, separation of powers principles, and the Tenth Amendment.

Because we conclude that the PLCAA does not bar the City’s claims, we need not address the constitutional issues. We affirm. * * *

Indiana’s public nuisance statute was a legislative enactment, which the Indiana Supreme Court interpreted as applying to the City’s claim. Thus, we conclude that the City’s claim is not an attempt to expand the common law and that it is not an attempt to circumvent the legislative branch of government. * * *

Based on the language of the predicate exception, the specific context of the predicate exception, and the broader context of the PLCAA, we conclude that the predicate exception is unambiguous. Because the City’s complaint and the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion indicate that the City alleged that the Manufacturers “violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product,” we conclude that the City’s action falls under the predicate exception and is not barred by the PLCAA. Because we conclude that the predicate exception applies and that the PLCAA does not bar the City’s claims, we need not address the remaining issues.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the Manufacturers’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for judgment on the pleadings in the action brought by the City.

For background on the case, start with this ILB entry (2nd half) from Sept. 8th, including links to the Indiana Supreme Court's 2003 ruling and then Lake Superior Court Civil Division 5 Judge Robert Pete's Oct. 6, 2006 ruling that "a year-old federal law shielding gun makers from lawsuits" was unconstitutional.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 29, 2007 11:42 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions